logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.10 2017구합104018
손실보상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,286,480 and the above amount are 5% per annum from January 6, 2017 to August 10, 2018.

Reasons

1. Details of ruling;

(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: Urban development project (B) - Project implementer: Defendant - Public notice of project implementer: C, public notice of Chungcheongnam-do as of December 10, 2014, D, and public notice of September 21, 2015; and public notice E as of March 21, 2016

B. The ruling of expropriation made on November 21, 2016 by the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Land Tribunal of Chungcheongnam-do: The date of commencement of expropriation: January 5, 2017 - The sum of land/land/land/land/land/business (transfer cost of business property) subject to expropriation as listed below:

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on June 22, 2017 - Contents of the ruling: AF GHF G in some cases as shown below:

D. Results of the commission by the appraiser I of this Court for appraisal - The amount of compensation for losses for the instant objects to be expropriated: Total amount of KRW 1,967,738,350 (applicable to partial increase) / Nos. 1,967,738,350 (applicable to recognition); the entries of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including serial numbers); the result of the commission by the appraiser I of this Court for appraisal by the appraiser I;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The amount of compensation for objection is less than a reasonable amount of compensation due to the evaluation of the price of each land and building subject to expropriation at an excessively low level. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff reasonable amount of compensation for losses and compensation for losses incurred therefrom. 2) The Plaintiff operated a business selling salt with the trade name “J” from the land and obstacles within the instant project district, and the Plaintiff suspended its business during the period of transferring its business due to the instant project, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of business compensation and compensation for losses incurred therefrom.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) Determination 1 is based on the relevant legal doctrine as to the assertion that the amount of compensation under the instant ruling cannot reach a legitimate amount of compensation.

arrow